


The Nature of Justice - Casual Discussion

by MsBlam



Category: Republic - Plato
Genre: No skill only chill, Philosophy, Plato's Republic, philosophy discussion, what do you think?
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2020-10-11
Updated: 2020-10-11
Packaged: 2021-03-07 21:34:11
Rating: Teen And Up Audiences
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Chapters: 1
Words: 529
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/26944492
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/MsBlam/pseuds/MsBlam
Summary: Is justice good in and of itself? Or is just the appearance of justice that is good? This is a question that Plato wrestled with, but what do you think?
Kudos: 2





	The Nature of Justice - Casual Discussion

In the second book of Plato’s _Republic_ , the allegorical figure of Socrates is having a discussion with Glaucon and his brother Adeimantus on justice and its nature. Glaucon, playing the devil’s advocate of the discussion, puts forward the argument that it isn’t justice in and of itself that is an intrinsic good, but the result of appearing as a just person that is good. He puts forward the ‘Ring of Gyges’ example to demonstrate what he is arguing. A shepherd finds a ring after a thunderstorm, and is discovered to have the power to turn the shepherd invisible (lol sound familiar?). The shepherd used the ring to cuckold the king, kill him, then take over his kingdom. Glaucon says that there would be no difference if the ring was worn by a just or an unjust man that “both would follow the same path.” (359c, 360d).

The next example Glaucon uses the example of an unjust man who has the reputation of being just, and an actual just man that is thought to be unjust no matter what. “In this way, both will reach the extremes, the one of justice and the other of injustice, and we’ll be able to judge which of them is happier.” (361d). Your immediate rebuttal to the example of these two men might be something along the lines of ‘but the god(s) know who is just and unjust and will reward them accordingly’, however this is when Adeimantus jumps into the fray. (It’s hilarious in the text lol “Well the, I replied, ‘a man’s brother must stand by him’, as the saying goes.” Which apparently is a quote form _The Odyssey_ because everyone is horny for the classics. Some big dick energy being swung around.)

Adeimantus’ argument that the wealth, political power, etc. that being unjust brings is more of a benefit not only to the individual, but also to those around the individual, extending to the gods as well. The point is made that “the gods, too, assigned misfortune and a bad life to many good people, and the opposite fate to their opposites.” (364b). And even if they are inclined to hand out just deserts to the unjust, it’s not as if the gods can’t be bribed (366d).

“If we are just, our only gain is not to be punished by the gods, since we lose the profits of injustice. But if we are unjust, we get the profits of our crimes and the transgressions and afterwards persuade the gods by prayer and escape without punishment.” (336a).

While obviously Plato goes on to devote a significant portion of his work to proving that justice is an intrinsic good, what do you all think? I actually think the brother’s argument is an excellent critique of many aspects of modern life, both in social, economic, and religious ways. (I don’t provide the definition of justice in the work’s context, as I don’t think it is relevant to further discussion unless you want to talk about the work itself and not the questions it raises.) Would you agree with Glaucon’s and Adeimantus’ argument? How would you go about proving the intrinsic good of justice?

**Author's Note:**

> If a good discussion gets going in the comments section I plan on copying them and posting them as a new chapter so people can follow along if they want. I made this to post on my discord group but I figured it turned out well enough to post here too.


End file.
